gd said:
Sorry but this thread is getting a tad silly - there will always be a point in time when Nikon has a better offering than Canon and then another point in time when the situation is reversed. If anyone is seriously suggesting that they are missing shots because they are using a D3 \ 1DsM4 then I'd suggest they take a good look in the mirror ... I doubt the camera is the problem ;-)

Sorry but this thread is getting a tad silly - there will always be a point in time when Nikon has a better offering than Canon and then another point in time when the situation is reversed. If anyone is seriously suggesting that they are missing shots because they are using a D3 \ 1DsM4 then I'd suggest they take a good look in the mirror ... I doubt the camera is the problem ;-)

Yeah I know D3s is superior to 1DsM4 at high ISO (D3s is actually usable up to 25600 as good as 1Ds at 12800 IMHO and that is fantastic result), but overall 1Ds is more useful camera being sharper at "normal" lighting conditions. D3s is exceptionally good camera but only as a second body.
My point is that Nikon caught Canon a year or two ago and now they are loosing the ground again, there is nothing in the current Nikon offering that could compete with Canon except maybe D3x but remember that Nikon is charging only the difference in the tweaked Sony sensor more then Sony charge for the whole camera with the same sensor and there is currently only 3Mpix difference to Canon and we see nothing in the horizon that could compete with most likely cheaper new 30+Mpix 1DMk4. And number of Megapixels does matter.
I do not see anything in the current offering that will intrigue me enough to spend some money and upgrade and I am sure only a couple of new users will go Nikon way at the time so my point again is Nikon must change something. Or they could ask the most influential photographer in the world what to do … ;P

As far as I am concerned they are, MP are not the crown of a successful camera. As already pointed out, the D3s has better high ISO performance than the newest 1DmkIV, and from all the tests I've seen the high ISO performance of the D300s is on par with the 7D. Then the D700, high ISO, better or equal to Canon's offering in that price range. So at the end of the day, unless MP are important to you, Nikon is doing just fine.

It is not you but Nikon; they should invest more in DSLR and less in stupid CoolPixess.
We hate them my precious
It seams they have prepared 5 new (3 S class and two lower P class) for this conference instead of something we want …

mb said:
No they don't and honestly if 7D was Nikon camera would you rather go for it or for 1450$ D300s?
And how about this pair:
Canon 5D MkII
Price $2500
Sensor FX 21Mpix
ISO 100-6400 (expandable to 50, 12800, and 25600)
4fps
Viewfinder 98%
Video full HD
Body Partially Sealed Magnesium Alloy

Again those are just numbers, nothing about performance. 12MP RAW files are big enough already thank you very much. I don't care about video, and the D300s AF system is still better than the 7D... moving on.

I've always said Nikon needs a metal/sealed body camera at around $1200USD. The D300 at $1800 was really looking way over priced so it's good the 7D finally came along! Perhaps the D400 will be priced around that price if there is a future D90 like full frame at $1800USD?

PB PM said:
Actually they do, its called the D300s. People base far too many choice on numbers, rather than actual performance.

No they don't and honestly if 7D was Nikon camera would you rather go for it or for 1450$ D300s?
And how about this pair:
Canon 5D MkII
Price $2500
Sensor FX 21Mpix
ISO 100-6400 (expandable to 50, 12800, and 25600)
4fps
Viewfinder 98%
Video full HD
Body Partially Sealed Magnesium Alloy

What Niko says makes a lot of sense. You should wait because it's never a good idea to buy something when new models are awaited in the next few weeks... Even if I was looking for a D3s myself, I'd wait to see what the D900 has to offer.

I'd buy the D3s over the D3x because of high fps and extremely good high iso performance. However, like many said, the 12mpx might be annoying... but if you aren't printing large, it's more than enough, if you want to print large, then the D3X or new upcoming models should be better...

The possibility to print larger is about the only bonus from the D3x IMO.

Also, don't forget the lenses! There's no point spending money on a good body if you don't get the best lenses around... 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, etc..

You convinced me Niko finally, Nikon I am gone. Not because D90 does not have metal frame body with plastic exterior parts as Canon 5D does, and not because it has just a bit better overall usability then Canon 5D but because Nikon does not publish images of the interior of D90 as Canon does for 5D so there must be something bad they are hiding there.

Plastic exoskeleton?! What are you talking about? Look it's not that I'm a Nikon fan boy 99% of the time but you are just wrong mb. The body is magnesium alloy and that is a metal not a plastic. The only thing that's plastic on the 5D series body is the memory card/battery doors and the buttons. The Nikon D90 is ALL plastic and has NO weather seals of any kind. The 5D series is not plastic, LOL.

I would love it if Nikon made a D90 with a metal body and seals but at that price range the only option is the canon 50D or the soon to be announced 60D. Even Pentax has the metal bodied and sealed K7! I use a 5Dmk2 and although it has it's faults it's body is much more rugged than the very nice plastic of the D90,lol.